Is John Mcarthur guilty of heresy?

[OldAbramBrown]

By the way, to reiterate my original response to the OP, the answer is “No” in that while Nestorianism is a serious error, Nestorians do not reject the Nicene Creed. Nonetheless, Nestorianism is an error, like Antidicomarianism or Iconoclasm, which must be strongly discouraged; it is much more problematic than Monergism.

I would even argue it is more of a problem than Universalism, since universalism is merely a misunderstanding of Eschatology, whereas Nestorianism causes confusion about the identity of Jesus Christ and adversely impacts the theology of the Incarnation. So it is a serious error.

However I cannot call anyone who confesses the Nicene Creed and the deity of Christ a heretic.

thank you for clarifying between error and heresy

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Sabellians - God consists of three persons, not one person with three modes of being.

Is that the same as modalism? I think those that want to control the charisms (to bear Christ to each other), like Grudem are that? But JM doesn't endorse that means or motive.

 

[ozso]

By the way, to reiterate my original response to the OP, the answer is “No” in that while Nestorianism is a serious error, Nestorians do not reject the Nicene Creed. Nonetheless, Nestorianism is an error, like Antidicomarianism or Iconoclasm, which must be strongly discouraged; it is much more problematic than Monergism.

I would even argue it is more of a problem than Universalism, since universalism is merely a misunderstanding of Eschatology, whereas Nestorianism causes confusion about the identity of Jesus Christ and adversely impacts the theology of the Incarnation. So it is a serious error.

However I cannot call anyone who confesses the Nicene Creed and the deity of Christ a heretic.

Is it still being maintained that John MacArthur is a Nestorian?

 

[ozso]

Scripture is to be believed even though it is colloquial. Do you know how to apply more than one logic at a time?

That's not an answer to my question.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

As a Protestant I'm explaining why a lot of Protestants are thrown off by "mother of God" vs "mother of Jesus" or "mother of Christ" - which is what the discussion is about.

You know, it would be relatively harmless if that were all there was to it, if evangelicals simply had a preference for "mother of Jesus" but were not implacably opposed to "mother of God". However, John MacArthur is implacably opposed to "mother of God".

 

[ozso]

You know, it would be relatively harmless if that were all there was to it, if evangelicals simply had a preference for "mother of Jesus" but were not implacably opposed to "mother of God". However, John MacArthur is implacably opposed to "mother of God".

He's opposed to what appears to him to be a way over the top obsession with Mary, as reflected in Marian prayers he read that were outright worship. One doesn't have to agree with his view, but he made a pretty strong case for it, mostly via Catholic literature.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

as reflected in Marian prayers he read that were outright worship.

Except that they are not.
They are veneration, and some folk are inclined to flowery expressions in the veneration but not worship (adoration) which belongs to God alone.

 

[Aaron112]

All that/ a lot of posted, might not matter at all. See the online large number of testimonies about the false gospel ..... verify what's true....

 

[ozso]

Except that they are not.
They are veneration, and some folk are inclined to flowery expressions in the veneration but not worship (adoration) which belongs to God alone.

Did you listen to all of them? Some were outright saying salvation is through Mary and praising Mary for the forgiveness an salvation she brings as a conduit to Christ. In literature approved by the RCC.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm explaining why the minority is thrown off by it. And if it's such an inconsequential minority, then why is such a huge deal being made out of it to the tune of nearly 1000 posts?

Because a small number of Protestants and Restorationists are exercising their right to debate with a combined ecumenical group of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Protestants and Roman Catholics all of whom are committed to the doctrine of the Third Ecumenical Synod held in Ephesus in 433 AD regarding their issue, and this is good, because it provides a fellowship opportunity for the two sides and stimulates learning. It also helps us recall scriptural verses and creates a mutual reason to read Sacred Scripture. Finally it allows for the alliance of traditional Protestants, Orthodox and Catholic Christians to propagate knowledge about the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the nature of Nestorianism, and why it is important that it be rejected as an error.

That being said, the discussion has been sidetracked by people needlessly attacking the Ecumenical Councils rather than seeking to get to the truth of the matter being discussed, which I find somewhat frustrating. Because the Ecumenical Councils exist; you don’t have to agree with them, but the real issue that we should be discussing is whether or not John MacArthur violated the theological degrees and canons of the Council of Ephesus or the Council of Chalcedon.

Now, while Nestorius was a pompous heresiarch, as I said earlier I cannot accuse John MacArthur as a fellow Nicene Christian of heresy, but I can say that he has made the mistake of many people who become, in my view, overly concerned about veneration of the Theotokos, and made the Christological error by expressing the Nestorian denial of the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God. Now, I do regard it as being borderline acceptable based on the literal texts of the Councils if one rejects the phrase “Mother of God” but confesses that St. Mary is Theotokos, but as far as I am aware he has not done that, nor has he, to my knowledged, professed agreement with the Councils of Ephesus or Chalcedon, but if you or someone else finds out that he has declared agreement with the third or fourth ecumenical council, then he has merely made a contradictory statement, and if he has acknowledged the status of St. Mary as Theotokos, he has made no error at all. I am going to be looking into this aspect shortly in an attempt to determine what John MacArthur actually did.

 

[The Liturgist]

Did you listen to all of them? Some were outright saying salvation is through Mary and praising Mary for the forgiveness an salvation she brings as a conduit to Christ. In literature approved by the RCC.

That still constitutes Veneration. The veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary has lead millions of people to Christ. For example, Christianity in Mexico only became widely accepted by the indigenous people after a native Mexican of the Chichimec people painted the famous icon known as Our Lady of Guadalupe, which was a beautiful icon sharing many features with Eastern Orthodox icons, which is miraculous because the painter, Juan Diego Cuāuhtlahtoātzin, could not possibly have seen these icons. And it was this holy icon which led to the barbaric indigenous human sacrifice religions finally collapsing, which is good because Ss many as forty million people were victims of genocidal ceremonial warfare conducted by the Aztec Empire to control the population of rival cities known as the Flower Wars, which lasted for a few centuries. Forty million exceeds the combined bodycount of the Ottoman genocides against the Bulgarian Orthodox Christians in the 1870s and against the Armenian, Syriac, Assyrian and Pontic Greek Christians whether Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant, in 1915, and the total number of Jews, Roma, Slavs, dissenting Protestants, disabled people and other individuals killed by the Nazi SS with ruthless efficiency during the Holocaust.

It is not the belief of the Roman Catholic Church however that the Theotokos is Co-Redemptrix; there is a group pushing for the “Fifth Dogma” based on visions received by a Dutch woman named Ida Peerdeman, but these visions are widely regarded as inconsistent with other Marian apparitions and many believe them to be demonic, and they have been consistently rejected by the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith and other authorities.

 

[Aaron112]

Did you listen to all of them?

God knows.

 

[ozso]

Because a small number of Protestants and Restorationists are exercising their right to debate with a combined ecumenical group of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Protestants and Roman Catholics all of whom are committed to the doctrine of the Third Ecumenical Synod held in Ephesus in 433 AD regarding their issue, and this is good, because it provides a fellowship opportunity for the two sides and stimulates learning. It also helps us recall scriptural verses and creates a mutual reason to read Sacred Scripture. Finally it allows for the alliance of traditional Protestants, Orthodox and Catholic Christians to propagate knowledge about the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the nature of Nestorianism, and why it is important that it be rejected as an error.

That being said, the discussion has been sidetracked by people needlessly attacking the Ecumenical Councils rather than seeking to get to the truth of the matter being discussed, which I find somewhat frustrating. Because the Ecumenical Councils exist; you don’t have to agree with them, but the real issue that we should be discussing is whether or not John MacArthur violated the theological degrees and canons of the Council of Ephesus or the Council of Chalcedon.

Now, while Nestorius was a pompous heresiarch, as I said earlier I cannot accuse John MacArthur as a fellow Nicene Christian of heresy, but I can say that he has made the mistake of many people who become, in my view, overly concerned about veneration of the Theotokos, and made the Christological error by expressing the Nestorian denial of the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God. Now, I do regard it as being borderline acceptable based on the literal texts of the Councils if one rejects the phrase “Mother of God” but confesses that St. Mary is Theotokos, but as far as I am aware he has not done that, nor has he, to my knowledged, professed agreement with the Councils of Ephesus or Chalcedon, but if you or someone else finds out that he has declared agreement with the third or fourth ecumenical council, then he has merely made a contradictory statement, and if he has acknowledged the status of St. Mary as Theotokos, he has made no error at all. I am going to be looking into this aspect shortly in an attempt to determine what John MacArthur actually did.

It sounds like what's being said is the status of Mary is as important as the status of Christ. A Mary/Jesus symbiosis. Even though no apostle ever said anything about our understanding, relationship, communinion, discipleship with Christ having anything whatsoever to do with Mary whatsoever. The idea that if you don't call Mary the Blessed Mother of God Queen of Heaven, you're denying Jesus Christ is Lord, is troubling. And if that's not what is being said, it seems a whole lot of effort has been put into making it sound that way by those espousing Mariology.

 

[ozso]

All that/ a lot of posted, might not matter at all. See the online large number of testimonies about the false gospel ..... verify what's true....

Along these lines it seems that Mary is suposed to be as integral to the Gospel as Christ Himself.

 

[Aaron112]

Along these lines it seems that Mary is suposed to be as integral to the Gospel as Christ Himself.

Again, beware, test everything, see online concerning the topic/title of this thread - he was often for many years exposed as false teacher, with a false gospel... a false mis-leading message. It was with dismay seeing the thread go so long when it was obvious .... no more time for it ....

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Along these lines it seems that Mary is suposed to be as integral to the Gospel as Christ Himself.

The same way we all are, bearing Christ to each other in Holy Spirit strength.

 

[The Liturgist]

thank you for clarifying between error and heresy

I don’t think you understand. I expressed my own refusal to accuse fellow Nicene Christians of heresy, unless they have been anathematized by my church, but there is no formal distinction between doctrines which are errors and doctrines which are heretical. I regard Nestorianism as a heresy and Nestorius was anathematized by the Third Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus, which my Church is a Party to, but the theological error that apparently was engaged in by John MacArthur insofar as it does not reject the Nicene Creed, is one that I am unwilling to accuse him of being a heretic for, and it doesn’t seem to me to cross the line into heresy. If however he explicitly endorsed the Christological conclusions of Nestorianism, the end-state that the heresy leads to, and declared that the human Christ and the divine Logos were separate, that sort of end-state Nestorianism is obviously contrary to the Council of Nicaea, and anyone who divides the humanity and divinity of Christ to that extent I regard as a heretic.

But this is my personal view; from a purely doctrinal perspective there is no distinction, but there is a concept known as oikonomia, meaning economy, which takes too long to explain, but basically I am not willing to declare people who adhere to the Council of Nicaea as heretics on the grounds of oikonomia as I believe this would be contrary to their best interests and would be counter productive in terms of evangelization, particularly since the term heresy has taken on a pejorative connotation that it did not have in the fourth and fifth centuries. My first priority is to promote Nicene Christianity, and then within Nicene Christianity my secondary mission is to promote traditional orthodoxy as practiced by Lutherans, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Roman Catholics, the mainline church in which I grew up before it degenerated with liberal pastors and dreadful praise and worship music, and other traditional Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic denominations (for example, the Norwegian Catholic Church, which is a traditional Old Catholic Church in communion with the Polish National Catholic Church).

 

[OldAbramBrown]

It sounds like what's being said is the status of Mary is as important as the status of Christ. A Mary/Jesus symbiosis. Even though no apostle ever said anything about our understanding, relationship, communinion, discipleship with Christ having anything whatsoever to do with Mary whatsoever. The idea that if you don't call Mary the Blessed Mother of God Queen of Heaven, you're denying Jesus Christ is Lord, is troubling. And if that's not what is being said, it seems a whole lot of effort has been put into making it sound that way by those espousing Mariology.

The creeds and councils were directed at major teaching authorities not laypeople.

To put a charitable slant on The Liturgist's latest clariation, JM was on that occasion skirting nominal error.

Also I think we have to remember whom his audience are. It appears the Mexicans have at least simmered down somewhat!

 

[The Liturgist]

It sounds like what's being said is the status of Mary is as important as the status of Christ. A Mary/Jesus symbiosis. Even though no apostle ever said anything about our understanding, relationship, communinion, discipleship with Christ having anything whatsoever to do with Mary whatsoever. The idea that if you don't call Mary the Blessed Mother of God Queen of Heaven, you're denying Jesus Christ is Lord, is troubling. And if that's not what is being said, it seems a whole lot of effort has been put into making it sound that way by those espousing Mariology.

Calling the Blessed Virgin Mary the Queen of Heaven is a Roman Catholic devotion and is irrelevant to the issue at hand. However, denying that Mary is Theotokos implies a denial that the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ coexist without change, confusion, separation, or division. This is because it’s simply impossible for the Blessed Virgin Mary to have given birth to Jesus Christ without having given birth to God, unless the fullness of God does not dwell In Him bodily, which contradicts what the Holy Apostle Paul wrote, and also, if St. Mary did not give birth to Jesus Christ than she was not the Mother of the Lord of St. Elizabeth, since St. Elizabeth did not know about Trinitarian theology but she did know about God, and the idea that Mary is Theotokos is expressly based on chapter 1 of the Gospel of St. Luke the Evangelist. It is also because of Chapter 1 of that Gospel, specifically, the canticle it records as being sung by St. Mary, the Magnificat, that we call her the Blessed Virgin.

The status of Mary is important to the status of Christ because what she gave birth to is what Jesus Christ is. You cannot separate Mariology from Christology, since it was through Mary that God became incarnate as a human being. That is the issue.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I don’t think you understand ...

Yes I do understand. Your clarification on that point especially combined with your explanation on "oikonomia" (which I had implicitly intuited while unable to articulate) has made a lot of difference to me. I fully understand differing degrees of (in)formality.